79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: − + − + Line 220:
Line 220: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster (view source)
Revision as of 21:34, February 24, 2013
, 21:34, February 24, 2013→Neutrality
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm]
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?
The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. <ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]
*Too obvious for words.
*Too obvious for words.
:: My whole point of adding that info is that this article seems to focus more on the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not on what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. When explaining a fictional creature, noting it's powers and abilities is relevant. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: My whole point of adding that info is that this article seems to focus more on the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not on what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. When explaining a fictional creature, noting it's powers and abilities is relevant. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::: You've done little more than simply restate the claim: Simply claiming that "noting it's powers an abilities is relevant" is not explaining ''why'' they are relevant. They are not relevant simply because you say they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:::: They are relevant because they contribute to the definition of what the Flying Spaghetti monster is, and what it can fictionally do. Just like noting in the article about Spider-man that he has the proportionate strength and agility of a spider and can stick to walls. Fictional characters are often defined by their powers.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)
::::: This article is not so much about the fictional character, but about the attempt to mock Christianity. The article already says that it is a parody, clearly implying that it is a parody of God, and therefore one would expect that it has the powers of God. Of the list of powers and abilities that the article currently shows, the only one that doesn't apply to God is the last one, that of deception. I concede that that last one deserves a mention, but think that the others could be covered by a simply statement, rather than by a list in its own section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I guess that's where we differ then, I want to fill out this article with more information about the fictional character. A parody does not necessarily imply the same powers and abilities though. I'd point to the movie The Life of Brian for example. I concede that, with the exception of the last point, the others can be covered by a blanket statement of "Has all the powers of God". [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I would like to see others' opinions on how much we include (and rationale for those opinions). Spiderman, to take your example, is interesting in his own right. The FSM is interesting not in its own right, but as a parody of the Creator. Insofar as its powers are relevant to that parody, they deserve a mention, but I'm still not convinced that they need much discussion otherwise. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)
==PJR and Fact tags==
==PJR and Fact tags==
The FSM's main purpose is to poke fun at the idea of teaching a religious creation story in a science classroom. It can be taken as a jab at any religious dogma, but it's primary use is more or less indisputable.
The FSM's main purpose is to poke fun at the idea of teaching a religious creation story in a science classroom. It can be taken as a jab at any religious dogma, but it's primary use is more or less indisputable.
Would Conservapedia's [[Islam]] article count as a valid source? RodWeathers recently blocked a user for suggesting that [[Intelligent Design]] was only an accepted belief of Muslims and Christians, rather than being the only belief. If the Conservapedia article is correct and Islam subscribes entirely to Intelligent Design and does not recognize evolutionary theory at all. It would follow that something that pokes fun at a belief in ID and by extension, Christianity, would also be mocking other religions that prescribe to the same belief. I can't speak for Judaism however so I will remove that one if you like. If I am incorrect in my reasoning, or if the CP article on Islam is incorrect in it's statement, let me know and I'll gladly fix them. --[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 14:07, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Would Conservapedia's [[Islam]] article count as a valid source? RodWeathers recently blocked a user for suggesting that [[Intelligent Design]] was only an accepted belief of Muslims and Christians, rather than being the only belief. If the Conservapedia article is correct and Islam subscribes entirely to Intelligent Design and does not recognize evolutionary theory at all. It would follow that something that pokes fun at a belief in ID and by extension, Christianity, would also be mocking other religions that prescribe to the same belief. I can't speak for Judaism however so I will remove that one if you like. If I am incorrect in my reasoning, or if the CP article on Islam is incorrect in it's statement, let me know and I'll gladly fix them. --[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 14:07, 13 December 2008 (EST)
: To be precise (pedantic?), RodWeathers didn't do what you say. That is, the article talks about Christian''ity'' and ''Islam'', not Christian''s'' and ''Muslims''. I agree that many Christians and Muslims—the ''people''—accept evolution; but whether or not Christianity and Islam—the ''religions'', or ''sets of beliefs''–accept evolution may be another matter.
: But that's a bit beside the point. My Fact tag and hidden comment were not querying whether the FSM ''can be'' applied to Islam and Judaism, but whether the FSM is "an attempt to mock" those two along with Christianity. Muslims and Jews have not, ''for the most part'' (i.e. thare are exceptions) been involved with ID (nor creationism). Those involved prominently have been Christians, agnostics (e.g. Michael Denton), and at least one member of the Unification church (Wells); I'm not sure that any (religious) Jews or Muslims have been that involved.
: ID is seen by its critics as a form of creationism (ignoring the pertinent differences), and creationism also has been particularly a ''Christian'' matter, although again that's not to deny that there has been ''some'' support from Muslims and Jews.
: To in summary, to say that the FSM is "an attempt to mock" Christianity ''and Islam and Judaism'' as though they were all equally targeted is, I believe, inaccurate.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)
== Neutrality ==
I'm suprised how unbiased this article is. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 15:06, 17 February 2013 (EST)
:Why surprised? Isn't unbiased information exactly what one would expect to read in a trustworthy encyclopedia? [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 16:23, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::Sure it's unbiased... [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 16:34, 24 February 2013 (EST)